2000_0327_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Dennis Welsch March 16, 2000 Page 2 Our Minnesota Courts have stated that: The appropriate standard of review in zoning matters is whether the zoning authority's action was reasonable. Our Cases express the standard in various ways: Is there a"reasonable basis" for the decision? or is the decision "unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious"? or is the decision "reasonably debatable"? Northwest Residence, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center, 352 N.W.2d 764,767 (Minn. App.1984), review denied (Minn. Jan. 4, 1985). In other words, a reviewing court should only set aside routine municipal decisions in those rare instances in which the decision has no rational basis. White Bear pocking and Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174,176 (Minn.1982). Ward v. Itasca County Bd. ofAdjustment, 1998 WL 566829, p.l (Minn. App., Sep 08, 1998). Moreover, a reviewing court "will not invalidate a city's zoning variance decision if the city acted in good faith and within the broad discretion accorded it by statutes and ordinances." Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488,491 (Minn. 1995). A decision of a city will only be reversed "if its stated reasons are legally insufficient or without factual basis." Rowell v. Board ofAdjustment, 446 N.W.2d 917, 921 (Minn. Ap. 1989) (pet. for rev. denied Minn. Dec. 15, 1989). The Planning Commission made a reasonable decision based on the facts advanced by Bradley regarding their claimed undue hardship as well as the underlying ordinance governing lot coverage. During the course of the hearing before the Planning Commission, issues relating to parking were raised in the context of the adequacy and proximity of parking. The argument was made that one of the underlying purposes for limiting lot coverage for shopping centers is to ensure adequate parking. Mr. Jamnik made it clear that the Planning Commission was not empowered to address the variance based on the adequacy and proximity of parking. Mr. Jamnik stated that the Planning Commission hearing was limited to the request for a variance from the lot coverage and non- conforming use ordinances. Mr. Welsch further clarified at the Planning Commission hearing that the availability of the entire south lot for parking was dealt with in the context of a special use permit hearing conducted in 1987. At the request of counsel for Mr. Keller, staff provided copies of the earlier proceedings regarding use of the south lot. The proceedings, summarized below, provide interesting insight into the issue of the adequacy of parking, which still remains a concern with respect to the question of lot coverage. On August 4, 1976, the Roseville Planning Commission reviewed a request for re-zoning of the south lot portion of the Har Mar property from R-1 to B-1-B. The request was made in conjunction with a joint venture, proposed by Mrs. Marie Slawik and Dr. Thomas Votel, to develop a medical building on the south parking lot. A copy of the proceedings is enclosed. The Roseville Sun, in an